Appellate courts should not interfere with a trial court's discretionary order for a mandatory injunction unless the order is perverse, arbitrary, or illegal. Mandatory injunctions are appropriate to restore the status quo ante and prevent a party from benefiting from their own unauthorized acts during litigation.

JUDGMENT :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. F. Faridi and Mr. G. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. I. Chhaya and Mr. A. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.

2. This is an appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order dated 06.11.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in Misc. (J) Case No.852/2025, arising out of Title Suit No.505/2023.

3. The background of the present appeal is that Late Kali Ram Medhi had three sons, namely, Ram Bhadra Medhi, Surendra Nath Medhi and Subhadra Medhi (all since deceased) and Late Ram Bhadra Medhi was the predecessor-in-interest of the Appellants/Plaintiffs. The Appellants/ Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Late Biro Bhadra Medhi, son of Late Ram Bhadra Medhi, who expired on 24.05.2021. It is relevant to mention herein that Late Subhadra Medhi was the owner and recorded pattadar of the Suit land, who died unmarried on 23.02.2016 and during his lifetime, he had executed a registered WILL dated 17.01.2015, before the Senior Sub-Registrar, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati vide Registration No. 10, Serial No. 1232, whereby he bequeathed the Schedule A property in favour of the Appellants/Plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest, Biro Bhadra Medhi (since deceased).

4. After the demise of Late Subhadra Medhi, Biro Bhadra Medhi (then alive) filed an application under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of probate in respect of the aforesaid WILL dated 17.01.2015 before the Hon'ble District and Sessions Judge, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati which was registered as Probate Title Suit No, 5 of 2018 and pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati. It is relevant to mention herein that during the pendency of the said Probate Title Suit No. 5 of 2018, Biro Bhadra Medhi expired, leaving behind the Appellants/Plaintiffs as his legal heirs.

5. That the predecessor-in-interest of the Appellants/Plaintiffs filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C, 1908 in the Probate Title Suit No. 5/2018 praying for restraining said Bandana Medhi, who was the contesting opposite party in the said probate title suit from constructing any permanent structure. In the order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati had rejected the prayer for injunction.

6. That during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, it came to the knowledge of the Appellants/Plaintiffs that the Sri Pradip Kumar Das who is Defendant No.1 in Title Suit 505/2023, as Applicant had submitted an application before the Circle Officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle seeking mutation of his name on the strength of an alleged Sale Deed bearing No. 15840 dated 31.12.2008 purportedly executed by Late Subhadra Medhi in respect of the Schedule-A land. The said application was registered as Mutation Application No. 50809/21-22. The Applicant No.3 had filed an objection dated 07.04.2022 with the Circle Officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle praying for not to grant mutation for schedule land on the grounds mentioned therein. But soon after the abovementioned mutation order, Sri Pradip Kumar Das executed a Deed of Sale dated 17.11.2022 in favor of Respondent within a short span of less tha